JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is qua the order of the learned Single passed in CWP No. 26470 of 2016, Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 21.12.2016. The learned Single Judge has, vide the order under challenge, upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-3 therein) appointing respondent No.5-Sahib Singh as Lambardar in place of the present appellant. Resultantly, the orders passed in favour of the appellant for appointment as Lambardar for village Behdri Bajurg, the benefit of which had been granted to him by the District Collector, Gurdaspur on 25.04.2011 (Annexure P-1) and upheld by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 21.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) were upset.

2. The legal lacuna which we feel as such which has happened because of this reversal of events is without considering the aspect that the District Collector is the best suited to judge the merit of the candidates with whom interaction is done and it is not for the Financial Commissioner as such to interfere until there is perversity in the order of the District Collector. In the present case, a finding necessarily was liable to be recorded that there is no such perversity on account of which the Financial Commissioner could have interfered, which has been wrongly upheld by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the interference in appeal by us.

3. A persual of the order of the learned Single Judge would go on to show that a finding was recorded by him that District Collector had accepted the report of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Pathankot without recording his own findings after due application of his independent and judicious mind and the comparative merits of the candidates had to be considered. It was noticed that there are no particular facts of any criminal case remotely referred or recorded which were pending against Sahib Singh and without having been substantiated on record. The District Collector was thus held not justified in accepting the report made by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Pathankot. The learned Single Judge held that the particulars and seriousness of alleged criminal cases should have been taken into consideration before passing of the respective orders and, therefore, the order was held to be suffering from illegality and perversity which was held not to be sustainable. Similarly, the learned Single Judge felt that the Commissioner had also committed the same error and once the acquittal was there, he should have interfered. The order of the Financial Commissioner was accordingly approved that he had not noted that the respondents have been acquitted in both the criminal cases which were falsely registered against him and that Sahib Singh who was the present appellant had a clear edge, even though their educational qualifications were at par as he had more land in the village than the appellant. Being the son of ex-Lambardar also was another aspect which weighed with the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the learned Single Judge felt that the District Collector's order was patently illegal and he accordingly approved the order of the Financial Commissioner.

4. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the District Collector was examining the merits of two more candidates namely Naresh Thakur and Manohar Lal apart from the present appellant and the private respondent. Manohar Lal had withdrawn his application and the name of Sahib Singh had been sent by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Pathankot for conducting a hearing before recommending the name as there were criminal cases pending against him. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Pathankot gave the details of the pending cases and recommended Harjit Singh-appellant thereafter. On the date of hearing, Sahib Singh had not appeared and only Harjit Singh had put in appearance. He was noticed to be 38 years old and matric pass and owner of 9 kanals and 9 marlas o